104 THE AGRICULTURAL CLUB. 



(2) That if tenant farmers held their land under the State, 



fixity of tenure would be secured. 



(3) That somehow or other the labourer would benefit by 



the introduction of this system exactly why they 

 should I have never been able to understand. 



(4) That nationalising the land would make possible the 



introduction of the single tax system. But as it is 

 under present conditions conditions which will, presum- 

 ably, obtain for some time the rental obtained from 

 land would only furnish a comparatively small pro- 

 portion of the necessary revenue, I submit that this 

 point need not be further considered. 



(5) That the proper control of cultivation would be secured 



and the consequent increase in production from the 

 soil. 



(6) That the community would benefit socially if the land 



of the United Kingdom were nationalised, for it would 

 then be readily available for all development. 



(7) That, since from the technical and legal point of view 



landowners hold their land from the Crown, the State 

 would be perfectly justified in resuming absolute posses- 

 sion of the land, and that such resumption would not 

 be an act of confiscation. Extremest point of view, 

 I common land. 



(8) That it is essential to nationalise land first before nationalis- 



ing railways, mines, etc. 



(9) That it would secure easy access to land for the largest 



possible number of people. 



Let me now define what I deem nationalisation as applied 

 to land to mean : I take it that briefly it means that in the 

 end there would be one owner of land the State instead of, 

 as at present, a multiplicity of owners ; and that farmers would 

 hold their land from and pay rental to the State, instead of 

 being, as at present, tenants of individual landowners. So that 

 we should still have the system of tenant and owner ; this is a 

 point which I want you to keep clearly in your minds. 



Mr. Turnor then emphasised the fact that in discussing 

 the nationalisation of the land it was essential to distinguish 

 clearly between urban and rural land. He pointed out that 

 there are many considerations affecting the one which did 

 not apply to the other, and that in general terms a stronger 

 case might be made out for the nationalisation of urban 

 land than for that of rural land. As regards agricultural 

 land, Mr. Turnor proceeded : 



